Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:13:41.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Geographic Variation in Fluted Projectile Points: A Hemispheric Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Juliet E. Morrow and
Toby A. Morrow
Juliet E. Morrow
Affiliation:
Arkansas Archeological Survey-Jonesboro Station, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 820, State University, AR 72467
Toby A. Morrow
Affiliation:
Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines geographic variation in fluted point morphology across North and South America. Metric data on 449 North American points, 31 Central American points, and 61 South American points were entered into a database. Ratios calculated from these metric attributes are used to quantify aspects of point shape across the two continents. The results of this analysis indicate gradual, progressive changes in fluted point outline shape from the Great Plains of western North America into adjacent parts of North America as well as into Central and South America. The South American “Fishtail” form of fluted point is seen as the culmination of incremental changes in point shape that began well into North America. A geographically gradual decline in fluting frequency also is consistent with the stylistic evolution of the stemmed “Fishtail” points. Although few in number, the available radiocarbon dates do suggest that “Fishtail” fluted points in southern South America are younger than the earliest dates associated with Clovis points in western North America. All of these data converge on the conclusion that South American “Fishtail” points evolved from North American fluted points.

Résumé

Résumé

Este estudio examina la variación geográfica en la morfología de puntas de proyectil acanaladas en América. Los datos métricos de 449 puntas de proyectil norteamericanas, 31 centroamericanas y 61 sudamericanas fueron archivados en una base de datos. Las proporciones que se calcularon de estos atributos métricos se usaron para cuantificar aspectos morfológicos. Los anàlisis realizados sénalan cambios graduates y progresivos en la forma de las puntas de proyectil acanaladas de los Grandes Llanoras del oeste norteamericano;estos cambios se ven no sólo en otras regiones contiguas de Norteamérica, sino también en Centro y Sudamérica. La forma cola de pescado de la punta de proyectil acanalada de Sudamérica se entiende como la culminación de cambios incrementales en la forma de la punta de proyectil que comenzaron muy dentro de Norteamérica. Una declinacion geográfica gradual en la frecuencia de la acanaladura corresponde a la evolución estilistica de las puntas cola de pescado que tienen pedúnculo. Aunque son muy pocas, las fechas de radiocarbón determinadas sugieren que las puntas acanaladas cola de pescado en el sur de Sudamérica son mas recientes que las fechas más tempranas asociadas con las puntas de proyectil Clovis en el oeste de Norteamérica. Todos estos datos nos hacen concluir que las puntas surdmericanas cola de pescado evolucionaron de las puntas de proyectil acanaladas de Norteamérica.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , April 1999, pp. 215 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References Cited

Anderson, A. D., and Tiffany, J. A. 1972 Rummels-Maske: A Clovis Find-Spot in Iowa. Plains Anthropologist 17: 55–59.Google Scholar
Aschmann, H. 1952 A Fluted Point from Central Baja California. American Antiquity 17: 262–263.Google Scholar
Bird, J. B. 1969 A Comparison of South Chilean and Ecuadorian “Fishtail” Projectile Points. The Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 40: 52–71.Google Scholar
Bird, J. B., and Cooke, R. G. 1978 The Occurrence in Panama of Two Types of Paleoindian Projectile Points. In Early Man in America from a Circum-Pacific Perspective, edited by Bryan, A. L., pp. 263–272. Occasional Papers No. 1. Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar
Borrero, L. A., and McEwan, C. 1997 The Peopling of Patagonia: The First Human Occupation. In Patagonia: Natural History, Prehistory, and Ethnography at the Uttermost End of the Earth, pp. 32-15. British Museum Press, London.Google Scholar
Bradley, B. A. 1993 Paleo-Indian Flaked Stone Technology in the North American High Plains. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-lndian Adaptations, edited by Soffer, O. and Praslov, N. D., pp. 251–262. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bryan, A. L. 1988 The Relationship of the Stemmed Point and Fluted Point Traditions in the Great basin. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by Willig, J. A., Aikens, C. M., and Fagan, J. L., pp. 53–74. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. L. 1991 Clovis from the Perspective of the Ice-Free Corridor. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by Bonnichsen, R. and Turnrnire, K. L., pp. 81–90. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
Chauchat, C, and Quinones, J. Zevallos 1979 Una Punta en Cola de Pescado Procedente de la Costa Norte del Peru. Nawpa Pacha 17: 143–147.Google Scholar
Clark, D. 1984 Northern Fluted Points: Paleo-Eskimo, Paleo-Arctic, or Paleo-Indian. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 4(1): 65–81.Google Scholar
Coe, M. D. 1960 A Fluted Point from Highland Guatemala. American Antiquity 25: 412–413.Google Scholar
Daniel, R. I., and Wisenbaker, M. 1987 Harney Flats: A Florida Paleo-Indian Site. Baywood Publishing, Farmingdale, New York.Google Scholar
Dunbar, J. S. 1991 Resource Orientation of Clovis and Suwannee Age Paleoindian Sites in Florida. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by Bonnichsen, R. and Turnmire, K. L., pp. 185–213. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
Dragoo, D. W. 1973 Wells Creek: An Early Man Site in Stewart County, Tennessee. Archaeology of Eastern North America 1: 1–56.Google Scholar
Fiedel, S. J. 1999 Older Than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians. American Antiquity 64: 95–115. (HbRf 39), British Columbia. American Antiquity 53: 371-384.Google Scholar
Frederickson, D. A., and White, G. G. 1988 The Clear Lake Basin and Early Complexes in California's North Coast Ranges. In Early Human Occupation in Far Western North America: The Clovis-Archaic Interface, edited by WiUig, J. A., Aikens, C. M., and Fagan, J. L., pp. 75–86. Anthropological Papers No. 21. Nevada State Museum, Carson City.Google Scholar
Garcia-Barcena, J. 1979 Una Punta Acanalada de la Cueva Los Grifos, Ocozocoatla, Chiapas. Cuaderna de Trabajo 17, Departmento de Prehistoria, INAH, Mexico.Google Scholar
Gnecco, C. 1994a The Pleistocene/Holocene Boundary in the Northern Andes: An Archaeological Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
Gnecco, C. 1994b Fluting Technology in South America. Lithic Technology 19: 35–42.Google Scholar
Goodyear, A. 1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 47: 382–395.Google Scholar
Goodyear, A. C. III, Michie, J. L., and Charles, T. 1990 The Earliest South Carolinians: The Paleoindian Occupation of South Carolina. Occasional Papers No. 2. Archaeological Society of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
Gramly, R. M. 1993 The Richey Clovis Cache: Earliest Americans Along the Columbia River. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
Green, F. E. 1963 The Clovis Blades: An Important Addition to the Llano Complex. American Antiquity 29: 145–165.Google Scholar
Gruhn, R., and Bryan, A. L. 1977 Los Tapiales: A Paleoindian Campsite in the Guatemalan Highlands. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 121: 235–273.Google Scholar
Haynes, C. V. Jr. 1964 Fluted Projectile Points: Their Age and Dispersion. Science 145: 1408–1413.Google Scholar
Haynes, C. V. Jr. 1966 Elephant Hunting in North America. Scientific American 214(6): 104–112.Google Scholar
Haynes, C. V. Jr. 1993 Clovis-Folsom Geochronology and Climatic Change. In From Kostenki to Clovis: Upper Paleolithic-Paleo-lndian Adaptations, edited by Soffer, O. and Praslov, N.D. pp. 219–236. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hester, T. R., Kelly, T. C., and Ligabue, G. 1981 A Fluted Paleo-Indian Projectile Point from Belize, Central America. Working Papers No. 1. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas, San Antonio.Google Scholar
Humphrey, J. D., and Ferring, C. R. 1994 Stable Isotopic Evidence for Latest Pleistocene and Holocene Climatic Change in North-Central Texas. Quaternary Research 41: 200–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, L. J. 1995 A Clovis Point from South Coastal Chile. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12: 21–23.Google Scholar
Johnson, E., Politis, G., Gutierrez, M., Martinez, G., and Miotti, L. 1997 Grassland Archaeology in the Americas: From the U.S. Southern Plains to the Plains of Argentina. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville.Google Scholar
Kehoe, T.F. 1966 The Distribution and Implications of Fluted Points in Saskatchewan. American Antiquity 31: 530–539.Google Scholar
Kelly, R.L., and Todd, L.C. 1988 Coming into the Country: Early Paleoindian Hunting and Mobility. American Antiquity 53: 231–244.Google Scholar
Koldehoff, B. 1983 Paleo-Indian Chert Utilization and Site Distribution in Southern Illinois. The Wisconsin Archaeologist 64: 201–238.Google Scholar
Levine, M. A. 1990 Accomodating Age: Radiocarbon Results and Fluted Point Sites in Northeastern North America. Archaeology of Eastern North America 18: 33–63.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, J. L. 1953 A Fluted Point from Durango, Mexico. American Antiquity 18: 394–395.Google Scholar
Lynch, T. F. 1978 The South American Paleoindians. In Ancient Native Americans, edited by Jennings, J. D., pp. 455-189. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Marckese, T. A. 1995 Three Fluted Points from South Central Louisiana. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12: 32–33.Google Scholar
Mason, R. P. 1988 Preliminary Report on the Fluted Point Component at the Aebischer Site (47Q30) in Calumet County, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Archeologist 69: 211–226.Google Scholar
Mayer-Oakes, W. J. 1986a El Inga: A Paleo-Indian Site in the Sierra of Northern Ecuador. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Volume 76, Part 4.Google Scholar
Mayer-Oakes, W. J. 1986b Early Man Projectile Points and Lithic Technology in the Ecuadoran Sierra. In New Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Americas, edited by Bryan, A. L., pp. 133–156. Center for the Study of Early Man, Orono, Maine.Google Scholar
McCary, B. C. 1975 The Williamson Paleoindian Site, Dinwiddie County, Virginia. The Chesopiean 13(3): 48–131.Google Scholar
Miotti, L. 1995 Piedra Museo Locality: A Special Place in the New World. Current Research in the Pleistocene 12: 36–38.Google Scholar
Montgomery, J., and Dickenson, J.A. 1992 Additional Blades from Blackwater Draw Locality No. 1, Portales, New Mexico. Current Research in the Pleistocene 9: 32–33.Google Scholar
Morrow, J. E. 1995 Clovis Point Manufacture: A Perspective from the Ready/Lincoln Hills Site in Jersey County, Illinois. MidcontinentalJournal of Archaeology 20: 167–191.Google Scholar
Morrow, J. E. 1996 The Organization of Early Paleoindian Lithic Technology in the Confluence Region of the Mississippi, Illinois, and Missouri Rivers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
Morrow, J. E. 1998 Excavations at the Martens Site, 23SL222. Missouri Archeological Society Quarterly 15: 4–7.Google Scholar
Nami, H. G. 1989 New Dates for the Paleoindian Societies of South America. Current Research in the Pleistocene 6: 18–19.Google Scholar
Ossa, P. P. 1975 A Fluted “Fishtail” Projectile Point from La Cumbre, Moche Valley, Peru. Nawpa Pacha 13: 97–98.Google Scholar
Perino, G. 1967 Early Projectile Points Found. Central States Archaeological Journal 14: 103–106.Google Scholar
Phelps, A. L. 1990 A Clovis Projectile Point from the Vicinity of Samalayuca, Chihuahua, Mexico. The Artifact 28(4): 49–51.Google Scholar
Politis, G. G. 1991 Fishtail Projectile Points in the Southern Cone of South America: An Overview. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by Bonnichsen, R. and Tummire, K.L. pp. 287–301. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
Reanier, R. E. 1996 Putu and Bedwell. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia, edited by West, F. H., Pp. 505–511. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Sanders, T. N. 1990 Adams: The Manufacturing of Flaked Stone Tools at a Paleoindian Site in Western Kentucky. Persimmon Press, Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
Schobinger, J. 1969 Prehistoria de Sudamerica. Nueva Coleccion Editoeise Labor, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Schobinger, J. 1971 Una Punta de Tipo “Cola de Pescado” de La Crucesita (Medoza). Anales de Arqueologia y Ethnologia XXV:89–97.Google Scholar
Schobinger, J. 1973 Nuevos Hallazgos de Puntas “Colas de Pescado” y Consideraciones en Torno al Origen y Dispersion de la Cultural de Cazadores Superiored Toldense (Fell I) en Sudamerica. Atti del 40 Congresso Internazionale degli Americanisti 1: 33–50. Genoa.Google Scholar
Seeman, M. 1994 Intercluster Lithic Patterning at Nobles Pond: A Case for “Disembedded” Procurement Among Early Paleoindian Societies. American Antiquity 59: 273–288.Google Scholar
Simons, D. B., Shott, M. J., and Wright, H. T. 1984 The Gainey Site: Variability in a Great Lakes Paleoindian Assemblage. Archaeology of Eastern North America 12: 266–279.Google Scholar
Snarskis, M. J. 1979 Turrialba: A Paleo-Indian Quarry and Workshop Site in Eastern Costa Rica. American Antiquity 44: 125–138.Google Scholar
Stanford, D. 1991 Clovis Origins and Adaptations: An Introductory Perspective. In Clovis Origins and Adaptations, edited by Bonnichsen, R. and Tummire, K.L. pp. 1–13. Center for the Study of the First Americans, Corvallis, Oregon.Google Scholar
Tankersley, K. B. 1989 Late Pleistocene Lithic Exploitation and Human Settlement Patterns in the Midwest United States. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Taylor, R. E., Haynes, C. V. Jr., and Stuiver, M. 1996 Clovis and Folsom Age Estimates: Stratigraphic Context and Radiocarbon Calibration. Antiquity 70: 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, C. N. 1993 Classifying Clovis Points: A Study in Metric Variability. Unpublished M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Tunnell, C. 1977 Fluted Projectile Point Production as Revealed by the Lithic Specimens from the Adair-Steadman Site in Northwest Texas. In Paleoindian Lifeways, edited by Johnson, E., pp.140-168. Museum Journal 17. Texas Tech University, Lubbock.Google Scholar
Turner, E. S., and Tanner, P. 1994 The McFaddin Beach Site on the Upper Texas Coast. Bulletin of the Texas Archaeological Society 65: 319–336.Google Scholar
Willig, J.A. 1989 Paleo-Archaic Broad Spectrum Adaptations at the Pleistocene- Holocene Boundary in Far Western North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Winfrey, J. 1990 An Event Tree Analysis of Folsom Point Failure. Plains Anthropologist 35: 263–272.Google Scholar
Wormington, H. M. 1957 Ancient Man in North America. Fourth Edition. Denver Museum of Natural History, Colorado.Google Scholar
Young, B., and Collins, M. B. 1989 A Cache of Blades with Clovis Affinities from Northeastern Texas. Current Research in the Pleistocene 6: 26–28.Google Scholar
Zarate, M., and Flegenheimer, N. 1991 Geoarchaeology of the Cerro La China Locality (Buenos Aires, Argentina): Site 2 and Site 3. Geoarchaeology 6: 273–294.Google Scholar